You are on page 1of 7

Infants' Physical World Author(s): Rene Baillargeon Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol.

13, No. 3 (Jun., 2004), pp. 89-94 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of Association for Psychological Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182920 . Accessed: 12/03/2012 13:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Directions in Psychological Science.

http://www.jstor.org

CURRENT DIRECTIONS

IN PSYCHOLOGICAL

SCIENCE

Infants'
Ren?e Baillargeon of Illinois University

Physical

World

ABSTRACT?Investigations past young ond, 20 years infants these have possess revealed

of

infants' two main

physical findings. about physical

world First,

over even events.

the very Sec

infants

saw a toy mouse another

from behind event, after

one behind disappear screen. The infants detected that the mouse that it could another

screen

and

reappear in this to exist

the violation continued

expectations undergo as infants and

suggesting it became screen

that they believed hidden, and realized from them

expectations of life,

the first occlusion, variables new findings. blindness

year

significant developments event form categories,

during such identify category. as the A these

one

and

reappear

behind (Aguiar

not disappear behind screen without ap 1999). saw an

containment, relevant of for

and events, covering outcomes in each predicting

pearing

in the gap between

& Baillargeon, infants

In a containment perimenter slid lower an

experiment, object inside and

2.5-month-old a container;

ex then

account

infants9 from

Predictions and teaching

reasoning integrates physical are examined in change the account

the experimenter

the container

forward initial attention, after

to the side The

to reveal

experiments. physical reasoning; explanation

in the container's with increased

position. suggesting it became walls

infants

the object standing to this event responded that the object that it could & Bail

that they believed hidden, of and realized

KEYWORDS?infant based learning

cognition;

continued not pass

to exist through 2001b).

the closed

the container

(Hespos

Over

the past 20 years, my collaborators and I have been studying how to predict infants use their developing and in physical knowledge on infants' the outcomes of events. This article focuses terpret

largeon, In a duck was

resting hidden

experiment, covering on the left end

are about three event categories: occlusion events, which knowledge or moves a nearer object, events an object in which is placed behind or occluder; are events an object containment in which events, which is placed a which 2002). inside rigid a container; cover and are events in events, which covering over an object & Wang, (Baillargeon bodies of developmental findings. new find Next, I to of

lowered screen, behind lifted event, after

by a screen a cover over the duck, lifted it above the

saw a toy infants aged 2.5 to 3 months of a platform; the middle of the platform taller than the duck. An experimenter slightly slid the cover moved slid infants behind the left half of the lowered and finally in this to exist it

screen,

it to the right, it past the screen,

the right half it to reveal suggesting it became

of the screen, The

the duck. that hidden,

detected the duck

the violation continued

is lowered

they believed and

that

I first

summarize

two relevant

outline make

between these ings, and then point out discrepancies a new account of infants' physical reasoning sense that of these discrepancies. from here

the cover was & Paterson, How

slid but not in press).

lifted

it to move with the cover when expected to a new location (Wang, Baillargeon,

that attempts lines

research All method.

test predictions reviewed experiment,

I describe Finally, this account. used

do 2.5-month-old in press;

infants Spelke,

detect Breinlinger,

these

and

other

Baillargeon,

Macomber,

(e.g., Luo & & Jacobson,

of the research In a typical with event, evidence

infants examined this

the violation-of-expectation see an expected event, which in the experiment, With and an

is consistent unexpected controls,

the expectation which that violates infants

than at the expected under

event detect

investigation, to this violation respond

appropriate at the unexpected indicates that they possess the expectation in the unexpected the violation event, and look reliably longer increased attention.

expectation.

& Rosser, and 1992; Wilcox, Nadel, occlusion, containment, 1996) It does not seem violations? that very young infants likely covering to observe would have repeated all of these (or similar) opportunities events and to learn to associate each event with its outcome. it Rather, seems more as that from an early likely, (1994), suggested by Spelke events in accord with general principles age infants interpret physical o? continuity in time and space) (objects exist continuously to each exist continuously, the two cannot (for two objects same question time in the same these space). Later in this are likely review, to be and solidity exist at the to the

with

I return innate

of whether

PRIOR FINDINGS
Beginnings Infants as young detect some Developments as 2.5 months of age (the youngest containment, to date) can events and covering tested 2.5-month-old Although about ment by 2.5 months occlusion, must still

principles

or learned.

of age

infants and

already

possess events, Recent event

expectations much develop has

violations

in occlusion,

containment, take place findings.

covering expectations. for each

(see Fig.

1). For example,

in one occlusion

experiment,

in these First,

research

revealed Address ment, e-mail: to Ren?e correspondence Baillargeon, Psychology of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel, University Champaign, rbaillar@s.psych.uiuc.edu. Depart IL 61820;

two main

category,

infants

a series of variables that enables them identify more and more accurately over time. For example, of age, infants identify height as an occlusion

to predict outcomes at about 3.5 months variable: They now

Volume 13?Number 3 Copyright ?

2004 American Psychological Society

89

Infants'

Physical

World

" F?-'*.... :**3

an occlusion behind one violation: The toy mouse disappears of violations detected by very young infants. The top row illustrates Fig. 1. Examples row screen and reappears in the gap between them (Aguiar & Baillargeon, from behind the other screen without 1999). The middle appearing a containment illustrates violation: The checkerboard object is lowered inside the container, which is then slid forward and to the side to reveal the row illustrates a covering The cover is in the container's violation: initial position 2001b). The bottom object standing (Hespos & Baillargeon, lowered screen, over slid past slid behind the toy duck, the screen, and finally the left half lifted to reveal of the screen, lifted above the screen, moved the duck (Wang, Baillargeon, & Paterson, to the right, in press). lowered behind the right half of the

to remain partly visible when behind short occlud tall objects expect ers of age, infants & De Vos, 1991). At about 7.5 months (Baillargeon variable, transparency: They now expect an identify another occlusion a clear, to remain occluder visible when behind transparent object

2001a). Baillargeon, ed an experimenter tainer until it became

In other either fully

experiments, lower a tall hidden turned

9-month-old object inside

infants watch a short con

(containment upside

condition)

or lower a object

short cover?the until it became

container fully hidden

down?over

the same

(Luo& Baillargeon, 2004).


Second, They variable learn infants do not generalize about each variables across When event infants categories: identify a it separately in one event category. or months weeks

(covering

the violation results

in the containment

The infants detected condition). further but not the covering condition;

in another similar series lower

category, events from

of a

category they identify to in their responses striking lags can be observed in one For example, the two categories (see Fig. 2). saw an experimenter 4.5-month-old infants experiments, object condition) either behind (occlusion until condition) only or inside at the infants con and & a short

before

the violation other to a

that only infants ages 12 months and older detected et al., in press). In yet in the covering condition (Wang next infants saw an object 7.5-month-old standing experiments, or container occluder (con transparent condition) (occlusion revealed condition). and then an Next, a large screen hid the occluder and or con lowered was The it

tainment tainer, behind lowered infants

tall

(containment top of detected dition; older

container

the knob

the occluder to reveal detected

lifted the object experimenter or inside the container. Finally, transparent occluder but not older

the screen or container.

the container. The the object remained visible above in the occlusion the violation but not the containment further results indicated that only infants in the containment ages 7.5 months

the only the violation ages

in the occlusion 10 months and

the containment the viola

condition; tion

detected

the violation

condition

(Hespos

only infants in the containment

detected 2004).

condition

(Luo & Baillargeon,

90 Volume 13?Number

Ren?e

Baillargeon

Height
4.5 months

inOcclusion

and Containment

Events

Height 9 months

inContainment

and Covering

Events

Transparency
7.5 months

inOcclusion

and Containment

Events

in different of lags in infants' reasoning about the same variable Fig. 2. Examples event categories. the lag in infants9 identification of the The top two rows illustrate as opposed to occlusion events. Although in containment variable 4.5 height in the occlusion month-old infants detect the violation event, it is not until infants event in the containment the violation 7.5 months old that they detect two rows illustrate the lag in infants' 2001a). The middle (Hespos & Baillargeon, to containment events: in covering as opposed of the height variable identification in the containment 9-month-old infants detect the violation event, it is not Although in the covering until infants are about 12 months old that they detect the violation two rows illustrate in press). The bottom & Paterson, (Wang, Baillargeon, as in containment variable of the transparency the lag in infants' identification events: Although in to occlusion 7.5-month-old infants detect the violation opposed old that they detect the occlusion event, it is not until infants are about 10 months event the violation in the containment event (Luo & Baillargeon, 2004). are about

Volume 13?Number

91

Infants'

Physical

World

These occlusion about about

results

indicate

that or

infants covering

do not generalize events, but

variables learn

from

of the

information,

but only

the

information, to infants'

included general

in the physical principles. are Third, rather include

to containment event category. in occlusion and

separately at in the

representation

becomes of life,

subject infants'

each

Thus,

3.5 months events

the height variable is identified but only at about 7.5 months events, events. in covering at about 7.5 months in containment Similarly,

in the first weeks impoverished: only when being sence basic When

representing

representations physical an event, infants typically it. For

containment transparency events, but

12 months is identified 10 months

variable only

in occlusion

watching

at about

events.

and temporal information about spatial a containment infants represent event, This lowered inside a container. information of the event, but leaves out most of

example, is that an object the es captures whether the or

its details:

A NEW ACCOUNT OF INFANTS' PHYSICAL REASONING


Discrepancies The developmental infants evidence acquire I have about just discussed are not events suggests event-general that the ex

container opaque, Fourth, consider variables infants

is taller and

or wider

than the object,

whether

it is transparent

so on. form event category, categories they include and learn what variables about to these

as infants in each

information When

expectations pectations

in their physical represent the basic to categorize selected;

representations. information it. They this then

to all relevant that are applied but rather events, broadly Infants do not acquire of event-specific expectations. general principles in each height or transparency: They identify these variables separately event But if infants are capable of acquiring category. only event specific expectations, how could they possess event-general principles as early as 2.5 months of age? One mechanism but soon is initially evolves toward geared into a different

about access

an event, watching the event and use this their knowledge the variables of the that

information event have be

category been

identified

as relevant

knowledge specifies to the category and hence representation. height the relative of the event; general

that should to our ex

included infants include

in the physical who have

of continuity possibility acquiring mechanism

and solidity, and is that infants' learning

ample, would container then

identified about

back Going as a containment heights this

variable and

information

of the object information enabling

in their

event-general capable of

expectations, acquiring

become violations

only event-specific expectations. I think more is that infants' general Another which possibility, likely, are innate of continuity and solidity 1994). principles (Spelke, one chooses, Whichever difficulties remain. If infants possibility interpret ciples salient some events in accord learned with or innate), general one continuity might and them saw solidity to detect prin all

representation to their subject involving

would them to

principles, and short even

detect Thus, should basic fail

tall objects

containers. very young infants only the

according detect

to this reasoning and can and solidity

account, violations

continuity they

that older

involve infants

information to detect variables

represent;

and much

should

(whether violations continuity others

of these and

principles. violations

expect we However, are detected

continuity

months, that

solidity are not detected than

that although as early as 2.5 for example, with increased container, increased cover.

about tions.

that involve solidity violations in their physical do not yet include they

information representa

until much

later: Recall, respond inside

infants

younger

7.5 months becomes

do not hidden

TESTS OF THE ACCOUNT


Effects Change-Blindness to the reasoning According as relevant tified a variable include information should about

attention and

when

a tall object younger a tall object

a short

that infants when

than 12 months becomes

attention

do not respond with hidden under a short

account,

infants

who

have and

not hence

yet

iden do not from involv

to an event this variable to detect they

category,

when

representing be blind infants

events

A New A new

Account account of of physical reasoning infants' and early successes solidity account violations rests (see Fig. late to make 3) attempts con at detecting failures 2002; Wang First, when et al., in a of all

the category,

be unable

surreptitious

ing the variable; An experiment

in other words, with 11and

should

sense tinuity press).

12-month-old

changes to these changes. tested this pre is identified at about 12

and This

(Baillargeon,

diction;

physical the event

event, that

infants is used

on four assumptions. build a specialized physical and interpret

watching

this experiment built on the findings that height as an occlusion at about 3.5 months variable but only as a covering variable. a tall cover in front of The infants watched

to predict

representation its outcome. Second,

months lower

(occlusion

condition)

an experimenter or over (covering

Interpret with general principles

Watch event

Build physical representation


Represent

Predict outcome

basic information

Represent variable information

Categorize
Fig. 3. A Paterson, new account of physical

event ?H Access [
reasoning in infancy

knowledge
(Baillargeon, 2002; Wang, Baillargeon, &

in press).

92 Volume 13?Number

Ren?e

Baillargeon

condition) as object tected olds the were

a short tall as

to reveal an the cover was removed next, object; the cover. Both the 11- and the 12-month-olds de in the occlusion condition, but only As the 12-month I have knowledge analyses focused on

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
a small of infants' and world: events. their Similar

the change detected

portion

physical

the change account, to the

in the covering the 11-month-olds change

condition.

reasoning blind

predicted by in the covering condition of the object

of occlusion, can be offered

containment, for infants'

covering

surreptitious 2004a).

in the height

(Wang & Baillargeon,

Teaching Another effects. then

Effects prediction If infants from could include events be the reasoning a new account variable about this concerns in an event variable them teaching category, when rep

cate of other event knowledge events such as support and collision gories, 2002). (e.g., Baillargeon, this evidence for the account of strong support Together, provides for the infants' physical here, and more generally reasoning presented con notion that both event-general and event-specific expectations events. to physical tribute to infants' responses In future reasoning research, my collaborators directions. and Infants I plan to expand our

taught

account

in several

recognize

that events

they would novel

information from the

resenting violations Wang height What periment? variable based 2002). and

category,

enabling

to detect

involving

I recently

variable might The

earlier than they would otherwise. to teach 9.5-month-old infants the attempted events in covering (Wang & Baillargeon, 2004b). ex in a successful be the key ingredients teaching a new infants which process identify by typically category to involve is assumed three main to be steps one of explanation Baillargeon, (e.g., is

the variable

inert and self-moving outcomes, involving objects may have different so a account should infants' about both reasoning complete explain sense of events event and object categories. as to make Furthermore, they unfold, integrate infants We infants' example, only they infants must not only so a events, represent complete individual account events but also how

successive link successive also

should

specify

are

representations. physical to explore beginning possible system reasoning can at first include see and other

connections cognitive

between systems. For

in an event learning First, and infants that when fully for the and

physical infants

(e.g.,

in their physical seen; only after

notice

contrastive is placed only relate fully

outcomes over

for the variable an object,

objects able

they directly to infer are

or have

representations some time are perhaps when

they notice sometimes search detect cover, Finally, using

a cover sometimes that

the object infants (e.g., than

the presence with

of additional

objects,

conditions

partly hidden). to these outcomes when

Second,

connections ilarly, infants

they the

forged are at first

a separate limited

that the object and becomes build

becomes

hidden when

it is shorter than

continuous they become

variables able

infants their

partly hidden an explanation

it is taller

the cover). data

for these

condition-outcome

variables,

perhaps

(e.g., height to engage in quantitative reasoning are formed with when connections spatial physical tasks responsible information. knowledge until suitable for planning Finally, in action

Sim system. problem-solving to reasoning about qualitatively or width); only after some time do about a system may these for not

prior

principles specify a tall but not a short

infants' and solidity knowledge (e.g., continuity to its full height that a tall object can extend inside cover).

representing some reveal

absolute of their

infants

violation-of-expectation) lished with the system et al., 2001). continue use

connections

to (as opposed are estab actions

In line with in our experiment this analysis, the infants received three pairs of teaching trials. Each pair consisted of a tall- and a short cover event. In each event, an experimenter rotated the cover forward to show its hollow the cover next to a tall object interior, placed (to facilitate and then lifted and lowered the cover height comparisons), over event, were the object. partly The object became fully hidden event. infants or short until next in the Different saw tall-cover covers

and executing

(Berthier As infants unveiling learn,

researchers attain and

the complex so very rapidly,

in understanding how we come closer to knowledge, physical that makes it possible for them to architecture progress their the world around them.

to make

about

and used

hidden

in the

short-cover

in the three pairs a novel lowered detected tall

of trials. The

test events Recommended Baillargeon, Leslie, A.M. R. Reading (2002). (See References)

in which cover was The infants

event) (expected over a novel tall object the violation to identify trials.

(unexpected event) it became fully hidden. event, suggesting in covering events also obtained when

in the short-cover the height results and some variable were test

that they were able the teaching during a 24-hr delay

specificity. E.S.

Positive

(1994). ToMM, ToBY, and agency: Core architecture and domain In L.A. Hirschfeld & S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind (pp. 119-148). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (1994). (See References)

Subsequent our teaching learning either no when

the teaching separated examined experiments trials. As expected, the teaching trials were

trials.

Spelke,

of the assumptions behind no evidence infants showed of modified was so that they provided shorter and became Acknowledgments?This Institute of Child Health research and Human

was

supported

by

the National

contrastive

outcomes

Development

(Grant HD-21104).

(the object

no condition under the tall and short covers), information fully hidden on the apparatus next to the tall object (the cover was never placed to compare it difficult or no for infants their heights), floor, making explanation covers were infants (false rotated with bottoms inside the covers?revealed when shallow). to the experiment, became the The same but Baillargeon, fully

REFERENCES
R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants' reasoning about Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116-157. R. of physical knowledge in infancy: A (2002). The acquisition in eight lessons. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood development (pp. 47-83). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

forward?rendered the data shallow as of in our the fact

tested

them all equally covers were exposed original that covers. the teaching tall

condition-outcome could hidden not make under

sense

object

summary cognitive

the tall but

shallow

Volume 13?Number

3 93

Infants'

Physical

World

Baillargeon, R., & De Vos, J. (1991). Object permanence old infants: Further evidence. Child Development, Baillargeon, R., & Wang, Sciences, S. (2002). Event 6, 85-93. categorization

in 3.5- and 4.5-month 62, 1227-1246.

R. (in press). When the ordinary seems unexpected: Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, for rule-based physical reasoning in young infants. Cognition. Evidence Spelke, E.S. (1994). Initial knowledge: Spelke, E.S., Breinlinger, S., & Baillargeon, effects. Unpublished Wang, Six suggestions. Cognition, 50, 431-445. of

in infancy. Trends in

Cognitive Berthier, N.E.,

K., Macomber, Review,

Bertenthal, B.I., Seaks, J.D., Sylvia, M.R., Johnson, R.L., & in visual tracking and Clifton, R.K. (2001). Using object knowledge reaching. Infancy, 2, 257-284.

knowledge. Wang,

Psychological

J., & Jacobson, 99, 605-632. blindness

K. (1992). Origins

R. (2004a). Change manuscript,

University

in infants: Event category of California, Santa Cruz.

R. (2001a). Infants' knowledge about occlusion S.J., & Baillargeon, Hespos, and containment events: A surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 140-147. Hespos, S.J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001b). Knowledge in very young infants. Cognition, 78, 204-245. about containment events

R. (2004b). Teaching S., & Baillargeon, infants the variable height in covering events. Unpublished of California, manuscript, University Santa Cruz. S., Baillargeon, R., & Paterson, S. (in press). Detecting continuity lations in infancy: A new account and new evidence from covering tube events. Cognition. vio and

Wang,

R. (2004). Infants' reasoning Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, events: Further evidence of d?calages. containment of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. script, University

about

occlusion

and Wilcox,

Unpublished

manu

T., Nadel, L., & Rosser, R. (1996). Location memory in healthy preterm and fullterm infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 309-323.

94 Volume 13?Number

You might also like